SANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No. 9390 of 2001 (Sant Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No. 491 of 2002 (Ex. Constable Jaibir Singh v. State of Haryana and others), as common question of facts and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP No. 9390 of 2001.

(2.) Petitioners have approached this Court through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the recruitment of Constables in District Bhiwani namely private respondents No. 5 to 10 and also for quashing the orders passed by the Inspector General of Police, Hissar Range, Hissar, which have been appended as Annexure P-12 with the petition and also for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider to appoint the petitioners who are put in a waiting list No. 3, 4 and 5, respectively as Constables. The case of the petitioners is that in a recruitment process carried out for the recruitment of Constables in District Bhiwani, they had appeared before the Selection Board. The private respondents No. 5 to 10 had also participated in the aforesaid selection process. Whereas the petitioners were allotted the waiting list No. 3, 4 and 5, respectively, the aforesaid private respondents No. 5 to 10 were finally selected and were appointed as Constables. The petitioners have averred in the petition that while applying for the aforesaid selection a candidate was required to fill up a form. A sample of the aforesaid application form has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition. As per the aforesaid form, in Column No. 9 a query was required to be answered as to whether the incumbent had never been arrested in any case and if yes, candidate was required to give full details of that. Similarly, in column No. 13, an applicant was required to detail out whether he had ever been arrested and whether he had ever been prosecuted and whether any case was pending against him in a Court of law or with police at the time of filing of the attestation form. If answer to any one of the aforesaid queries was in the affirmative then full particulars of the aforesaid query were required to be given.

(3.) The petitioner has averred that all the selected candidates, namely respondents No. 5 to 10, had criminal cases pending against them. The details of the aforesaid criminal cases have been tabulated and have been attached as Annexure P-5 with the petition. On the strength of the aforesaid pendency of the criminal cases against the aforesaid respondents, petitioners have specifically averred that none of the aforesaid respondents had ever disclosed the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against them and, therefore, in terms of Clauses No. 4 and 8 of the advertisement, if any information which was furnished by the candidate was found to be incorrect, then his candidature was liable to be cancelled. The petitioners have averred that since the private respondents had furnished incorrect details, therefore, their candidature itself was liable to be cancelled and in any case the selection of the aforesaid candidates was totally unsustainable and was rather liable to be quashed.